Cancer

[Bill Thompson]

I just had two deaths in my family from cancer and I was told about them one day apart from the other one.

It sucks and they were both fairly young.

You hear about these break-throughs but people are still dying.

What have you heard?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I heard the bird is the word.

[macdoc]

Many cancers that had very low survival rates a decade ago have 80-90% cure rates if detected early....

There is far too little information in the OP to make any meaningful comment.:con2:

[BenBurch]

My friend, Blues singer Candye Kane is 15 months post-surgery from her Pancreatic Cancer. So far, cancer-free. This was 100% fatal 20 years ago. Now it is only 70% fatal.

I'd call that a breakthrough.

[Agatha]

I am sorry for your loss. Cure rates are much higher but they are not yet 100%. Maybe they will be, one day.

[Marduk]

http://www.thenhf.com/articles/articles_792/articles_792.htm
It works 100% of the time to eradicate cancer completely, and cancer does not recur even years later. That is how researchers describe the most convincing cancer cure ever announced.

The weekly injection of just 100 billionths of a gram of a harmless glyco-protein (a naturally-produced molecule with a sugar component and a protein component) activates the human immune system and cures cancer for good, according to human studies among breast cancer and colon cancer patients, producing complete remissions lasting 4 and 7 years respectively. This glyco-protein cure is totally without side effect but currently goes unused by cancer doctors.

note I'm not vouching for its veracity, maybe someone else can tell me if this is bs or not
thanks

[Ducky]

http://www.thenhf.com/articles/articles_792/articles_792.htm


note I'm not vouching for its veracity, maybe someone else can tell me if this is bs or not
thanks

October 2008 for that article and there hasn't been a Nobel Prize or major story on it in the news?

Really?

Curing cancer would be a watershed day for ... well everyone. I call BS.



Um. It contradicts itself.

It says It works 100% of the time to eradicate cancer completely, and cancer does not recur even years later.

And then says in the next paragraph:

producing complete remissions lasting 4 and 7 years respectively.

Wha?



Whoops, just lost me:

Help NHF get the word out about GcMAF and other proven cures for cancer that are being ignored. Learn how NHF is the leading health freedom organization, for example, battling for your right to maintain access to dietary supplements without restrictions imposed by quasi-governing bodies like CODEX and our other missions. Search the NHF website for more helpful information and become a member by clicking here.


Woo with a persecution/big pharma twist.



And this just makes me irritated:

Addendum: Sadly, the treatment you have just read about is not available anywhere. Its inventor is attempting to patent a version of it to profiteer off of it even though there is no need to improve upon the GcMAF molecule - - it worked without failure to completely cure four different types of cancer with no long-term remissions and without side effect. While GcMAF is produced by every healthy adult, there are no centers available to extract it from blood samples and inject it into patients with malignancies. Hopefully, someday, doctors will write protocols to do this and submit them to institutional review boards so GcMAF treatment can be performed on an experimental basis. GcMAF is a naturally-made molecule that cannot be patented. This article was written to reveal that there are proven cancer cures that go unused. Of interest, not one oncologist has requested information about GcMAF since this article was written, while I have been barraged with inquires from cancer patients, their families and some interested physicians who are not cancer doctors. -Bill Sardi


Yes of course panicked cancer patients want your snake oil. That's your target prey.

[Marduk]

October 2008 for that article and there hasn't been a Nobel Prize or major story on it in the news?

Really?

Curing cancer would be a watershed day for ... well everyone. I call BS.

calling BS is one thing, considering that curing cancer with our current methods is a multi billion dollar industry is something else. Imagine if you could cure cancer with water, where would the money be in that ?

[Ducky]

calling BS is one thing, considering that curing cancer with our current methods is a multi billion dollar industry is something else. Imagine if you could cure cancer with water, where would the money be in that ?

How about the million you'd get for the nobel prize?

[Agatha]

How about socialised health care systems, where the driving force is to save money? If woo like this worked, we'd be using it here. But it doesn't and we don't.

[Safe-Keeper]

I feel your pain, mate. What really sucks is when they recover, but then suffer a relapse weeks, months or even years later and die anyway... I lost a former classmate this way. Feels utterly unjust, like he won the fight and then is killed anyhow.

There are advances, of course, but it's a tough fight.

[Robster, FCD]

Marduk, it is interesting, and certainly deserves more study, but the authors overstate its current proven value and make up conspiracies regarding its availability. It also is claimed to be a cure for AIDS, which makes me very skeptical.

Here is a good lay review (http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/12/03/cancer-cured-for-good-gc-maf-and-the-miracle-cure/) of Gc-MAF.

[Marduk]

Marduk, it is interesting, and certainly deserves more study, but the authors overstate its current proven value and make up conspiracies regarding its availability. It also is claimed to be a cure for AIDS, which makes me very skeptical.

Here is a good lay review (http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/12/03/cancer-cured-for-good-gc-maf-and-the-miracle-cure/) of Gc-MAF.


Thanks for that R
greatly appreciated
:)

[Robster, FCD]

One of the big problems resulting in the slow pace of cancer research is that it is a catchall name for 100+ different disease groups, each of which includes genetic variety making one case of say, liver cancer, potentially different from another case, regarding how it responds to treatments.

An advance in treating one type does not always translate to another. As an example, 80% of childhood solid tumors are now curable.

Early detection is also incredibly important. Caught early, pancreatic cancer has a 70% 5 year survival rate. Sadly, it is rarely caught early, and the typical 5 year survival rate is closer to 1-2%. Luckily for the average person, it is a rare cancer type, but as my late mentor was fond of saying, it isn't rare if you have it. We are getting better at detecting certain cancers earlier, which is a vital advance. If only we could get more people to use these tests. Universal health care would go a long way towards eliminating the financial reasons why people don't get checked, but we also have to change the behavior of people, and get them to actually go see a doctor.

[godless dave]

I heard that there are lots of different kinds of cancers with lots of different causes.

[Dogdoctor]

Cancer incidence is on a decreasing trend (depending on where you live). In the USA it is mostly decreasing or stable. There are more people and they are living longer which allows them more time to get cancer. There may be more cancer but still a lower incidence. This has not too much to do with treatment but it does have to do with prevention (better diet/lifestyles)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How about the million you'd get for the nobel prize?

They would never get the million. The jews who run the world wouldn't allow it.

[Bill Thompson]

I am sorry for your loss. Cure rates are much higher but they are not yet 100%. Maybe they will be, one day.
Thanks, I appreciate that.

[Bill Thompson]

I feel your pain, mate. What really sucks is when they recover, but then suffer a relapse weeks, months or even years later and die anyway... I lost a former classmate this way. Feels utterly unjust, like he won the fight and then is killed anyhow.

There are advances, of course, but it's a tough fight.


It seems like something worth throwing more money at.

[Robster, FCD]

It seems like something worth throwing more money at.

Absolutely. There are lots of good research grants out there, but not nearly enough money to fund but a fraction.

[Molinaro]

My father died of cancer. So did his father, his grandfather, his 2 uncles, as well as 4 other more distant male relatives.

Essentialy, all males on his side of the family died of cancer. When I was born in '69 I had no living male relatives on my father's side of the family, other than my father.

The oldest any male on his side of the family is known to have lived is 63 years.

[SusanB-M1]

note I'm not vouching for its veracity, maybe someone else can tell me if this is bs or not
thanks
I wonder what Ben Goldacre has to say about this?

[Dancing David]

As a survivor, a mother who is a double survivor and friend to three who have died, I give you my sympathy.

One of the issues is that there are multiple factots often that need to align for cancer to occur. So often the single cause is hard to find. Treatments are investigated but true understanding of the mechanisms is still in the future. So effective treatments are still far away for many cancers.

[Cuddles]

I heard that there are lots of different kinds of cancers with lots of different causes.

Yes. This is why anything that claims to cure "cancer" is almost certain to be a fraud. Real cures target specific types of cancer, they don't pretend that all cancers can be treated in exactly the same way.

[wackyvorlon]

calling BS is one thing, considering that curing cancer with our current methods is a multi billion dollar industry is something else. Imagine if you could cure cancer with water, where would the money be in that ?

Couple things. The pharmaceutical industry making a profit does not cause a given therapy to work. The logic just doesn't work on that one.

Secondly, when I hear this refrain, I think you're not being very creative. Nestle bottles tap water and sells the bottles for $1.25 each, and they don't even pretend to cure cancer. They do well enough off that. You'd be amazed at the things you can make money on.

[Kariboo]

I think one of the reasons there are no great breakthroughs/only slow progress is the lack of funding for new and interesting research. A lot of funding goes to research that is 'safe'. http://www.brokenpipeline.org/brokenpipeline.pdf

[wackyvorlon]

Orac has debunked this one:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/06/are_we_playing_it_too_safe_in_cancer_res_1.php

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/06/are_we_playing_it_too_safe_in_cancer_res.php

[casebro]

All I know of glyco-proteins is that they are the cause of diabetic complications. Seems the body is pretty bad at breaking them down, so the build up and clog things.

I think a lot of pesticides are glyco-proteins too?

[Pmb]

Break throughs don't mean that people are not still dying of cancer. It means there is an increase in survival rates. For example; I contracted a bad form Leukemia back in 2000 called Acute Myloid Leukemia (AML). When my uncle got this back in tyhe 1930s the five year survival rate was zero. When I got it in 2000 the five year survival rate was 15%. Today the survival rate is 19%. Since I've been in remission for 10 years I'm considered cured. So that's good. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

calling BS is one thing, considering that curing cancer with our current methods is a multi billion dollar industry is something else. Imagine if you could cure cancer with water, where would the money be in that ?Imagine a philanthropist actually just wanted to find a cure for cancer? Shock, some people do good things without doing it just for a profit. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Marduk, it is interesting, and certainly deserves more study, but the authors overstate its current proven value and make up conspiracies regarding its availability. It also is claimed to be a cure for AIDS, which makes me very skeptical.

Here is a good lay review (http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/12/03/cancer-cured-for-good-gc-maf-and-the-miracle-cure/) of Gc-MAF.
There has been a lot of work and developments in the field of using our immune response to beat cancer. This is in that category.

But cancer cells currently often develop resistance to our immune response. It's my understanding that we have yet to overcome this problem.

However, there has been a breakthrough here as well. The technique involves genetic research which led to a possible means of shutting off the resistance development gene. But it will be a few more years before it is developed into a usable therapy.

Progress is moving at a rapid pace in the cancer field. It's very sad to see people dying today when it is possible in 10 or 20 years the same people would have survived. I think that is one of the tragedies of seeing such tremendous progress but not having that progress move fast enough.

[blutoski]

calling BS is one thing, considering that curing cancer with our current methods is a multi billion dollar industry is something else. Imagine if you could cure cancer with water, where would the money be in that ?

It would be in the savings for those who are paying for healthcare, which is a significant part of the government budgets of most western countires, as well as a significant part of the costs of private health management organizations and private health insurance companies.

[brodski]

calling BS is one thing, considering that curing cancer with our current methods is a multi billion dollar industry is something else. Imagine if you could cure cancer with water, where would the money be in that ?
From the NHS and other government funded health-care systems.

For profit heath-care may, possibly, for arguments sake be motivate towards expensive less effective treatment- but for nationalised medicine we want it cheep and effective.